Cited by

“[W]e review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 10 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶8 “‘[W]e review a grant of summary judgment de novo,’ viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.” 9W Halo OPCO, LP v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 9 (2026) ( ¶ 10 (2021)).

¶ 11 (2021) ("Defendants only owe a duty to [Plaintiff] if they had legal control of the premises or exercised actual, physical control over it.").

¶5 We declined special action jurisdiction on November 13, 2024, but our supreme court vacated the initial order and remanded the cause to us “for reconsideration in light of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A as set forth in Dabush v. Seacret Direct, LLC, –73 (2021), and Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District No. 214, ” Total Renal v. Moskowitz/Brackman, CV-24-0294-PR, 2025 WL 1021587, at *1 (Ariz. Apr.

See, ¶ 9 (2021) (discussing a multi-tenant commercial building premises liability claim); –03 (1983) (deciding what duties a municipality owes to pedestrians on its roads); ¶¶ 1–3 (2000) (deciding whether our comparative fault s

DISCUSSION ¶22 “[W]e review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 10 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶7 “We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, ‘viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.’” S. Ariz. Home Builders Ass’n v. Town of Marana, ¶ 16 (2023) ( ¶ 10 (2021)).

5 POINTE 16 v. GTIS-HOV, ET AL. Opinion of the Court summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 10 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶21 “[W]e review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 10 (2021).

Inc. v. Edais Eng’g Inc., ¶ 5 (2022) (negligence); ¶ 9 (2021) (premises liability); McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., ¶ 23 (App. 2013) (premises liability).

see McMurtry, ¶¶ 33-36 (reversing grant of summary judgment based on questions of fact regarding whether decedent’s status had changed to trespasser); (“Plaintiff’s status as trespasser, licensee or invitee was contested and properly treated as a question of fact for the jury’s determination.”); (although the question whether a party assumed a duty is generally factual, courts may resolve it as a matter of law where the facts are undisputed); Woodty v. Weston’s Lamplighter Motels, (noting that 7

¶12 “[W]e review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 10 (2021) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶16 “We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, ‘viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.’” S. Ariz. Home Builders Ass’n v. Town of Marana, ¶ 16 (2023) ( ¶ 10 (2021)).

DISCUSSION ¶10 The Estate argues that the trial court erred in granting Renee summary judgment on the competing quiet title and false documents claims.2 This court “reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 10 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶10 We “review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 10 (2021).

at 376–77 ¶ 27(“Identifying the risk within the scope of the special relationship does not touch on concepts of breach or causation, so there is no danger of conflating duty with those elements.”); ¶¶ 33–35 (2021) (rejecting an argument that a court could not consider case-specific facts to determine as a matter of law that defendant had not assumed a duty to plaintiff).

¶33 Attempting to establish applicability of the duties5 inherent in a landlord-tenant relationship, Plaintiffs argued the policy was relevant to show the Trust had obtained “rental” insurance for the property, which in 5 ¶ 9 (2021) (“In Arizona, duty is based on either special relationships recognized by the common law or relationships created by public policy.”) (citations omitted); Piccola By & (“A landlord owes a duty of reasonable care which requires inspection of pre

¶ 10 (2021) (summary judgment); Mills v. Ariz. Bd.

DISCUSSION ¶16 We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 10 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶7 “[W]e review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” ¶ 10 (2021).

1965) (emphasis added); ¶ 36 (2021) (noting that Arizona has adopted § 324A).

See Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 145 ¶ 21; ¶¶ 33–35 (2021) (rejecting argument that court could not consider case-specific facts to determine as a matter of law that a defendant had not assumed a duty to plaintiff).

¶15 To have “actual control over premises,” a party “must have the authority to: (1) exclude others from the premises; and (2) direct how the premises is repaired, maintained, and used.” ¶ 18 (2021).